Since the controversial incident in 1995 when Shell attempted to dispose of an oil storage buoy off Scotland’s west coast, energy companies have been required to dismantle offshore structures on land following decommissioning.

The plan to sink the obsolete Brent Spar sparked significant public backlash, with environmental activists, including those from Greenpeace, intervening to halt the procedure. Following extensive protests and boycotts of Shell service stations, the company rerouted the Brent Spar to a Norwegian fjord for dismantling, which proved to be nearly ten times more expensive. Subsequently, regulatory bodies in the northeast Atlantic implemented a permanent prohibition on at-sea disposal of similar installations.

According to regulations established in 1975, taxpayers shoulder approximately half of the expenses associated with decommissioning offshore assets when they reach the end of their lifecycle. The anticipated total decommissioning costs in the North Sea fluctuate based on operational activity and efficiency improvements, but were estimated at £40 billion last year by the government-backed North Sea Transition Authority. The treasury could be liable for around £20 billion through tax relief related to operators’ past and forthcoming tax obligations.

This financial burden could be incurred sooner than expected if Ed Miliband, the newly appointed energy secretary, follows through on his commitment to impose stricter regulations on the North Sea oil and gas sector.

The Labour Party’s manifesto aims to augment the Conservative government’s windfall tax on industry profits to 78%, eliminate what they term “unjustifiably generous investment allowances,” and halt the issuance of new exploration licenses. The party projects that the increased windfall tax could generate £1.2 billion annually, translating to £6 billion over this parliamentary term, funding the proposed state-operated GB Energy.

The North Sea has experienced two significant booms, one in the mid-1980s and another in the late 1990s, generating over £300 billion in net tax revenues and previously contributing more than 10% of all government income. Despite an extended decline, hastening this process could have detrimental economic and environmental consequences.

Interestingly, major corporations like Shell and BP account for only about 30% of North Sea production; the majority of operations are conducted by smaller companies such as Harbour, Ithaca, and Serica. Implementing higher taxes and withdrawing investment incentives would likely lead to significant production and job losses, particularly in Scotland. Analysts from Stifel suggest Labour’s proposed windfall tax could yield a maximum of £5 billion in revenue, primarily due to driving the sector into “rapid decline,” ultimately leading to diminishing returns.

Limiting domestic oil and gas supply during a period of sustained demand risks transferring emissions abroad. The primary argument for such actions is thinly veiled; it purportedly enhances the UK’s moral position in advocating for global net-zero targets, alongside isolating fossil fuels.

While this has been widely debated, the implications of the North Sea’s accelerated decline for decommissioning expenses warrant further attention. Stifel predicts Labour’s strategies will shift these financial obligations forward by about ten years, creating a notable increase in costs around the early 2030s. Projections indicate that by 2040, the government may face a situation in which financial support to the oil and gas sector through tax relief exceeds the revenues collected from it, echoing the predicament observed in 2016-17 when the North Sea first became a net drain due to falling commodity prices.

As Treasury officials search for billions within fiscal constraints, the prospect of an expedited £20 billion expenditure raises considerable concern. Furthermore, the optics of such expenditures could present challenges for a Labour government; for instance, comments from former justice secretary Alex Chalk emphasize the need to balance budgets between new prisons and hospitals in austere times.

Amid these considerations, a governmental reluctance to fulfill these payments could emerge. This scenario was anticipated by both the industry and the preceding administration. In 2013, Sajid Javid, serving as economic secretary to the Treasury, offered assurances to North Sea operators that the decommissioning tax relief regime would remain unchanged. The government signed over 80 legally binding agreements to guarantee these tax benefits at established levels. In fact, the government had to draw on these agreements as recently as 2017-18, when it paid £45 million to an operator and allocated an additional £299 million for impending years.

Industry insiders suggest that any governmental move to revoke these agreements would be met with significant backlash, likely resulting in legal victories for the companies.

It’s important to note that these considerations were anticipated in the oil sector. Miliband’s stance aligns with his promises during his time in opposition. While some may argue against his approach, it is essential to weigh the implications for taxpayers and the potential friction between idealistic strategies proposed by Miliband and the pragmatic perspectives of figures like Chancellor Rachel Reeves. There is hope that practical governance prevails.

Starmer’s Coalition Building

On a more constructive note, Sir Keir Starmer has made several commendable appointments, including Sir Patrick Vallance as science minister and James Timpson for prison affairs. Additionally, Varun Chandra, head of intelligence firm Hakluyt, is expected to assume a business role, while Sir Nigel Wilson, former chief of Legal & General, could contribute to housing strategies. This approach echoes Gordon Brown’s famed “government of all the talents” initiative.

[email protected]